Bug#744693: cairo-dock: confirmed with latest version in sid
Package: cairo-dock Version: 3.4.0-1 Followup-For: Bug #744693 This bug is still present with the current version in sid. -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.0 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages cairo-dock depends on: ii cairo-dock-core 3.4.0-1 ii cairo-dock-plug-ins 3.4.0-1+b1 cairo-dock recommends no packages. cairo-dock suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686922: reportbug crashes when using the '--paranoid' option
Hi Sandro, On 9 September 2012 13:18, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: Hello Xavier, [...] That seems like the pager you have had some problems; what is the pager you use? it's either $PAGER or the one launched by sensible-pager. My $PAGER variable is unset and sensible-pager points to less. I believe it is a classical configuration. Regards, Xavier
Bug#686922: reportbug crashes when using the '--paranoid' option
Hi Sandro, On 10 September 2012 20:48, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Xavier Lüthi xav...@caroxav.be wrote: My $PAGER variable is unset and sensible-pager points to less. I believe it is a classical configuration. yes indeed, can you replicate it or was just one-off? I can reproduce it easily, with less and more: once the paranoid mode shows you the full message, immediately pressing q to quit the pager produces the error. However, if I go up to the end of the message (pager showing the END), the error does not appear. Does it help you to understand the issue? Xavier
Bug#460338: It renders apt-proxy unusable
Hi, Le Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:43:31 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine fran...@debian.org a écrit : severity 460338 grave thanks I agree to raise the severity of this bug as it renders the package unusable. I finally removed today apt-proxy in my work LAN because this hanging onto update is a too common pattern and renders the package unusable since lenny release. I found apt-cacher-ng much more usable, and I'm inclined in proposing removal of the package if none had something to say against that. In the past month, I've tried to have apt-proxy's package in a better shape, but the number of bugs related to the core part of the application is really high and really requires a core developer to fix them. As apt-proxy do not have anymore any active developper but only some package maintainers, and taking into account the number of bugs filed for apt-proxy, I think it's a reasonable proposition to remove apt-proxy from the archive. Is anyone against this proposition ? Cheer, Xavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#558219: pixelpost and exaile: error when trying to install together
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:40:43 +0100 Ralf Treinen trei...@free.fr wrote: Package: exaile,pixelpost Version: exaile/0.2.14+debian-2.1 Version: pixelpost/1.7.1-6 Severity: serious User: trei...@debian.org Usertags: edos-file-overwrite Date: 2009-11-26 Architecture: amd64 Distribution: sid Hi, automatic installation tests of packages that share a file and at the same time do not conflict by their package dependency relationships has detected the following problem: [...] (--unpack): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/pixelpost/templates/horizon/scripts/lib/prototype.js', which is also in package exaile 0:0.2.14+debian-2.1 Processing triggers for man-db ... Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/pixelpost_1.7.1-6_all.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) This is a serious bug as it makes installation fail, and violate section 7.6.1 of the policy. Possible solutions are to have the two packages conflict, to rename the common file in one of the two packages, or to remove the file from one package and have this package depend on the other package. File diversions or a Replace relation are another possibility. Here is a list of files that are known to be shared by both packages (according to the Contents file for sid/amd64, which may be slightly out of sync): usr/share/pixelpost/templates/horizon/scripts/lib/prototype.js This bug is assigned to both packages. If you, the maintainers of the two packages in question, have agreed on which of the packages will resolve the problem please reassign the bug to that package. Hi, It seems this is a bug in the exaile package. This bug has been introduced by an NMU on exaile to solve bug #555244. I think the way this exaile bug has been solved is a bit strange: instead of removing the embedded prototype.js script and create a link towards libjs-prototype package, it creates a link towards the file: /usr/share/pixelpost/templates/horizon/scripts/lib/prototype.js This file is obviously contained in the pixelpost package. In fact, this file is a link towards the libjs-prototype package! As a conclusion, to solve this bug and to solve correctly bug #555244, exaile should contain a link to porototype.js from libjs-prototype package. Cheers, Xavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555244: The patch is wrong as it introduces a new bug ( bug #558219)
reopen 555244 thanks Hi, The patch to solve this bug is not correct. Insteand of linking towards prototype.js from libjs-prototype package, it links towards a file from the pixelpost package (see bug #558219 for details). I'm thus reopening this bug in order to have it solved correctly. Cheers, Xavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#558219: Patch
tags 555244 patch tags 558219 patch thanks Hi, To solve these bugs, the file debian/link must be changed to link /usr/lib/exaile/plugins/httpserver/data/prototype.js towards /usr/share/javascript/prototype/prototype.js The attached trivial patch corrects this (not tested yet). Cheers, Xavier 555244.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#285360: confirmed
found 285360 1.9.36.3+nmu1 tags 285360 +confirmed thanks It seems this old bug is still present in the latest version of apt-proxy. Here is my log confirming it: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/debian]$ ls -l apt-proxy/ total 2952 -rw-r--r-- 1 xavier xavier 3017514 2008-10-26 15:23 aptitude_0.4.11.10-1lenny1_amd64.deb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/debian]$ sudo ls -l /var/cache/apt-proxy/debian/pool/main/a/aptitude total 2924 -rw--- 1 aptproxy nogroup 2986200 2008-10-09 05:32 aptitude_0.4.11.10-1lenny1_i386.deb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/debian]$ sudo apt-proxy-import -v apt-proxy/ 2008-10-26 15:37:27+0100 [-] Log opened. 2008-10-26 15:37:27+0100 [-] verbose 2008-10-26 15:37:27+0100 [-] [import] Importing packages from directory: apt-proxy/ 2008-10-26 15:37:27+0100 [-] [apt_pkg] No Packages files available for ddtp backend 2008-10-26 15:37:27+0100 [-] [apt_pkg] Loading Packages database for /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy-import/backends/security 2008-10-26 15:37:28+0100 [-] [apt_pkg] Loading Packages database for /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy-import/backends/ubuntu-security 2008-10-26 15:37:28+0100 [-] [apt_pkg] Loading Packages database for /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy-import/backends/debian 2008-10-26 15:37:45+0100 [-] [apt_pkg] Loading Packages database for /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy-import/backends/ubuntu 2008-10-26 15:37:46+0100 [-] [import] aptitude_0.4.11.10-1lenny1_amd64.deb skipped - already in cache 2008-10-26 15:37:46+0100 [-] [log] Imported 0 files close failed: [Errno 11] Resource temporarily unavailable [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/debian]$ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#314738: wontfix as not used anymore
tags 314738 +wontfix thanks As this bug imply the migration from one very old version of apt-proxy (even no more present in the oldstable distrib), I think this bug won't be fixed anymore. By the way, do we have to keep it opened? Cheers, Xavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#432221: apt-proxy: startup fails silently
tags 432221 +unreproducible Hi, With the current version of apt-proxy (1.9.36.3+nmu1), I cannot reproduce your bug. In fact, if I'm setting an IP address not linked to my machine, apt-proxy does not start: I do not see any clear message on the console, but it's quite clear in apt-proxy.log: 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] self._port = self._getPort() 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/twisted/application/internet.py, line 116, in _getPort 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] *self.args, **self.kwargs) 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/twisted/internet/posixbase.py, line 328, in listenTCP 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] p.startListening() 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/twisted/internet/tcp.py, line 739, in startListening 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] raise CannotListenError, (self.interface, self.port, le) 2008-10-26 22:11:37+0100 [-] twisted.internet.error.CannotListenError: Couldn't listen on 1.2.3.4:81: (99, 'Cannot assign requested address'). Furthermore, apt-proxy is not listed in ps -ef. Do you agree to close this bug? Or do you want to keep it open with a severity set as wishlist to ask for a clear message when not starting correctly? Thanks, Xavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#497743: patch review
Hi Seb, Perhaps I'm wrong, but to my knowledge and following the man page of File::Temp, the function to use in order to create a temporary folder is tempdir and not mktempdir (line 65 in your debdiff file). Cheers, Xavier 2008/9/6 Sebastien Delafond [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 04:56:27PM +0200, Xavier Lüthi wrote: I cannot find your patch attached to your email. Can you please send it as I want might be interested in reviewing it! There it is... --Cheers, --Seb
Bug#496380: patch review
Hi Seb, I cannot find your patch attached to your email. Can you please send it as I want might be interested in reviewing it! Thanks, Xavier
Bug#406986: Upgrade B2evolution 0.9.2 to 1.10.2
Hi Arnaud, On 10/03/2008, Arnaud Guiton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Xavier wrote: Hi all, Hi! Currently, two upstream versions are available: - 1.10.3 dated from 2007-11-01 and which is a stable version. - 2.4.0 dated from 2008-01-23 and which is a RC4 version. Which version do you think is the best ? If there are also numerous incompatibilities between the 1.n and the 2.n branches for, say, the database structures, it would be better to package directly the 2.4 version. This would avoid doing two tricky upgrades: 0.9 - and 1.10 now and 1.10 - 2.4 in a few months. But if this 2.4 is still not stable, then there are no choice but to package the 1.10 version. Just my 2 cents... Thanks for being back and taking care of the package, by the way! The 2.4 version of b2evolution is considered as stable by the upstream author, even if it is currently tagged as RC2 ;-) I agree with you, let's work with this new version, so that we have to do the hard work only once... I'm going to work on it this week and let you know when I have something which can be tested... By the way, who is ready to test the new package before uploading it? Cheers, Xavier
Bug#406986: Upgrade B2evolution 0.9.2 to 1.10.2
Hi all, Sorry for not responding sooner to your emails. I'm not using b2evolution anymore, thus explaining my lack of responsiveness. Anyway, I'm ready to package a new version of b2evolution for Debian. Currently, two upstream versions are available: - 1.10.3 dated from 2007-11-01 and which is a stable version. - 2.4.0 dated from 2008-01-23 and which is a RC4 version. Which version do you think is the best ? Anyway, we won't avoid the upgrade issue from the old 0.9.2 version to the new version. This is even implying a database upgrade which can be very tricky to package So, what do you think is the best? Thanks for your feedback, and thank you for your interest in b2evolution in Debian :-) See you, Xavier On 29/02/2008, Arnaud Guiton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Emilio wrote: In fact, I guess the package should be orphaned and removed from Debian if a new maintainer doesn't step up, as Xavier Luthi (the original maintainer) is not around (I didn't see him in mentors either). While I agree that the package is in a pretty bad shape, I think completely removing it from Debian would be a pity :-/ I maintained the first versions of this package but had to let Xavier take it over because I hadn't enough time to work on it. However, if Xavier does not respond and/or nobody wants to take care of packaging a new version (to be in sync with upstream), I'd agree to do it. I would not be able to do that before the end of April, though, so that could be a problem... Cheers, -- Arnaud -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHyGdPYiSFserVDZsRAg/6AJ49RaczUj0EZhDsoJy8VboNbWCUXwCg1nwh IkUPR55DIe5zNHj/bJbVspM= =UcOc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
